Tobias Ellwood: Last year, the Government proposed to detain suspected terrorist without charge for 90 days, but now they are proposing to let on-the-run terrorists get off scot free, without having even one day in court. Will the Secretary of State say who is in favour of the Bill? The Opposition are not in favour of it, and neither are the Army or the police. The victims are certainly not in favour of it and not one political party—including Sinn Fein, as we have just heard—supports it. Surely the Bill should now be thrown out?

David Hanson: The guidelines that I am producing for consultation were not drawn up out of the blue; they were drawn up in conjunction with the PSNI, the criminal justice agencies and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. The criminal justice system and the police are integral to the operation of the schemes. At present, none of the schemes are funded by the Government, but they operate to support the reduction of crime in our communities. We have to ensure that there are minimum guidelines, and the minimum for us is that no paramilitary activity or criminality is involved and that individuals respect and comply with the rule of law and work with the agencies to tackle crime. That is central to our conditions for the guidelines. [Interruption.]

Tony Blair: I do not know the about the particular element that the hon. Lady is referring to. All I can say is that, as far as I am aware, I certainly was not consulted on whether this prosecution should be dropped. [Interruption.] Well, I have not studied the letter myself, but it has been put in the Library. I will do so, and I will write to the hon. Lady.

Peter Hain: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about Northern Ireland.
	Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally. Since 2002, for reasons that the whole House knows, that has not been possible. However, our commitment remains absolutely clear: the Government believe that 2006 can be the year for restoration of the Assembly and will work to that end as a matter of utmost priority.
	My predecessors have all referred to critical times for Northern Ireland, and there have been many, but this year is indeed critical, especially for the Northern Ireland political parties and specifically for Assembly Members. For them, 2006 is a make-or-break year.
	If no restoration of the Assembly is in prospect, two stark realities have to be faced. First, public resentment in Northern Ireland continues to build at the continued payment to Assembly Members of salaries and allowances that total on average £85,000 per member while Stormont stands idle. Since it was suspended in October 2002, the Assembly has cost £78 million to maintain.
	Countless times, voters in Northern Ireland have asked me, "How long can this go on?" I want to tell the House today that it will not go on for many months more. Furthermore, no Northern Ireland political leader has disagreed with me that it would be traducing democracy to have elections for the second time to an Assembly that does not exist. Elections are due in May 2007. For them to be meaningful, we must have an Assembly that exercises its full responsibilities. We therefore need to make progress urgently. We cannot let things drift.
	Members of the Legislative Assembly were elected to be active members of a legislative Assembly, working for their constituents in that Assembly. They have a duty to do so. I want to see them discharging their responsibilities to their electors to govern on the shared basis that the voters of Northern Ireland gave them a mandate for in the 1998 referendum. Of course, that means building greater trust to deliver on commitments already made on all sides.
	Unionists and nationalists need to know that republicans are committed to exclusively lawful means. They need to know that all paramilitary activity, including criminality, has ended. The Independent Monitoring Commission is the body that will make that assessment. They also need to know that there is unequivocal support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and for the rule of law. And republicans and nationalists have to know that unionists are fully committed to fair and equitable power sharing. But if people are serious about seeing a shared future based on fairness and equality, they must persuade each other of that. I am therefore asking each of the political parties to agree on dates in early February for substantial discussions with the British and Irish Governments, to give their views on the way forward to restore the political institutions. The Prime Minister, together with the Taoiseach, will be closely involved with developments during the year.
	I also wish to inform the House about the Government's intentions as regards the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. When I moved its Second Reading on 23 November, I said that the Bill was necessary to help to bring closure to Northern Ireland's dark past of violence by resolving outstanding issues that had not been dealt with in the Belfast agreement, primarily that of terrorist suspects on the run. Following the agreement, more than 400 paramilitary prisoners were released on licence. Although victims of atrocities were, understandably, in uproar at the sight of murderers and former terrorists walking free, it was the right thing to do to seal the agreement and lock in the peace. However, it left unresolved an equally difficult matter: the issue of what to do about those who had committed terrorist offences before 10 April 1998 and who, had they been in prison at the material time, would have been part of the early release scheme. It also left unanswered the question of what to do about others who might be prosecuted in future for crimes committed during the troubles before the Good Friday agreement.
	The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill is a challenge to everyone to look to the future, and not to be trapped in the past. That challenge remains. But, as I told the House then, I did not bring forward the Bill with a spring in my step, because I knew how hard it was for those thousands of victims who had lost so much. I knew that introducing the legislation would be difficult and uncomfortable, and I neither sought nor expected the sympathy of the House for that.
	Members of the House, particularly those from Northern Ireland, expressed their opposition to the Bill with great power and passion. In detailed discussion in Committee over many hours—I think it was 27 hours—those concerns were amplified with real commitment by Members across the Committee. That passion was expressed no less powerfully outside the House in meetings that I and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) had with victims' groups. In response to the arguments put to us in Committee, we have been drafting wide-ranging amendments to the Bill, including amendments to ensure that defendants would have to appear before the special tribunal. We were also giving serious consideration to a time limit for the scheme.
	The Government still feel that it was right to introduce this legislation, not least to honour the commitment made publicly by both the British and Irish Governments in 2003, a commitment that was a key building block in the process that saw the IRA end its armed campaign. The Government could have proceeded with the Bill when the issue was first raised seven years ago. We could have done so when the joint declaration was made in 2003. We did not do so, however, because the IRA had not delivered on its promise to end its war. We waited until that happened.
	Every Northern Ireland party vigorously opposed the Bill, bar Sinn Fein. Now Sinn Fein opposes it, because it refuses to accept that the legislation should apply to members of the security forces charged with terrorism-related offences. To exclude from the provisions of the Bill any members of the security forces who might have been involved in such offences would have been not only illogical but indefensible, and we would not do it. Closure on the past cannot be one-sided. That was, and is, non-negotiable.
	The process would have made people accountable for their past actions through the special tribunal before being released on licence. Sinn Fein has now said that any republican potentially covered by the legislation should have nothing to do with it. But if no one went through the process, victims who would have suffered the pain of having to come to terms with the legislation would have done so for nothing. That is unacceptable, and I am therefore withdrawing the Bill.
	When I introduced the Bill, I said that I would not presume to tell any victims that they must draw a line under the past, but the Government still believe that the anomaly will need to be faced at some stage as part of the process of moving forward. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland is not yet ready to do that. We will reflect carefully over the coming months on how to make progress in the context of dealing with the legacy of the past. We will not rush to conclusions and I will take stock in the autumn. In reflecting, we will be mindful of the views of all the political parties, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, victims' groups and others.
	We are approaching the endgame of a long period of transition that began with the ceasefire of the early 1990s. As I have said before, the endgame in conflict transformation is often the hardest part, and so it has proved in this case, but 2006 can and must be a year of historic progress in Northern Ireland. It must be a year in which we see a devolved, power-sharing executive of local politicians making the decisions that affect the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. That goal should unite all Members of the House.

Michael Mates: I share the universal welcome for the withdrawal of the Bill, but is it not a sad state of affairs that it appears that Sinn Fein-IRA is still driving so many decisions behind the scenes, by either withholding or giving support? The Secretary of State may ask why Sinn Fein-IRA still withhold support from the police and will not deal with the exiles matter, but is it not because they are looking for further concessions before they agree? Will he make certain that there are no further concessions?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Last week, I stood with families of the victims of the Kingsmill massacre in South Armagh as they commemorated the 30th anniversary of that atrocity. They will join many families of victims across Northern Ireland in welcoming the Secretary of State's decision. Is not it time that we put the victims and not the perpetrators at the centre of the process? The Government's agenda should be to accommodate not the perpetrators but the needs of the victims. In that context, will the Secretary of State consider giving a role to the interim victims commissioner in finding the way forward?

Barbara Keeley: We have covered this ground on many occasions, but may I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that when the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs discussed the issue, Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission talked about the tension between participation and security? On behalf of the commission, he said that
	"we do not feel national insurance numbers are something we should be asking people to provide at registration".
	Surely, hon. Members should accept that advice.

Eric Forth: Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain the matter later in his remarks. but I am puzzled by amendment No. 17, which he tabled. It would provide for the application to include
	"a copy of the applicant's signature, date of birth and national insurance number (or a statement that he does not have one)".
	What assurance can we have of the system's safety if someone could provide a signature, presumably without much verification, a date of birth—I do not know how we verify that—and then had the gall to say, "I don't have a national insurance number"? What kind of assurance does that give me as a citizen that that person is entitled to vote?

Barbara Keeley: How does the hon. Gentleman believe that local authorities would check national insurance numbers? Conservative Members appear to be running away with that idea? There is no existing mechanism whereby they can do that.

Oliver Heald: In Northern Ireland, it is done by computer and data matching the two sources. When I was a social security Minister years ago, the Minister suggested, in a different context, that we should data match local authority records against the national insurance computer. As far as I know, there is no reason why that should not happen. It might be complicated and the Minister might have a better answer. However, there is no electronic reason for not being able to make that comparison, as is done in Northern Ireland.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a matter of getting a result in which people can believe? He knows that, in Bradford, the police have investigated more than 250 cases of alleged electoral fraud since the general election. People in my part of the world would prefer to have a robust system of voting and registering so that the police can concentrate on catching thugs, muggers and those who damage society. People in Bradford would regard my hon. Friend's proposal of using national insurance numbers as a common-sense way of allowing the police to do the job that they want them to do rather investigating electoral fraud.

Oliver Heald: I well remember reading the right hon. Lady's book on this subject, and it was most illuminating. I consider myself a new man as a result.

David Heath: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) sat down rather abruptly and caught me by surprise.
	I welcome the attitude of the Minister and her colleagues in the Department towards our consideration of the Bill. We have made progress in all sorts of ways, sometimes in surprising areas, given the initial response that we received in Committee. Common sense obviously prevailed at a later stage, for which I am grateful. I must say that it contrasts markedly with the attitude displayed by a previous incarnation when we discussed the Bill that became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. At that time, no attempt was made to reach a consensus; indeed, a very partisan view was taken.
	The amendments, and this part of the Bill, highlight a key aspect of parliamentary drafting. As I tried to translate the Electoral Commission's proposal into amendments I was struck by the extraordinary complexity of our statutory electoral arrangements, although in this context clarity is essential. I do not know how on earth any electoral returning officer can find his or her way through the thickets of the statutes that they must implement, let alone someone lacking expert advice.
	I think that in future we should consider electoral arrangements as candidates for consolidation. When we amend them by statute we should start with a clean sheet, almost ab initio, and absorb the earlier statute into a new Bill dealing with all the rules, rather than expecting returning officers to consult the Representation of the People Acts 1983, 1985 and 2000, and all the other relevant Acts. They cross-reference in a bewildering way, and even skilled draftsmen and lawyers find it difficult to manoeuvre their way around them.
	Throughout the debate there has been a degree of good will between Front Benchers, and indeed between Back Benchers who spoke in Committee and on the Floor of the House. However, we have been presented with a false dichotomy of approach, as though one side was saying "Never mind the quality, feel the width" and the other side was saying "Never mind the width, feel the quality"—as if some can think only in terms of increasing the number of people who are properly registered, and others can think only in terms of potential abuse of the system and the need to deal with fraud. I do not believe that those are alternatives. I believe that we can have both a properly representative register, and one that prevents fraud wherever possible.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the view of the Conservative party is different from that of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. That is transparently the case, but then it is so different from that of many Conservatives. But I must not allow myself to be diverted.
	As I have said, I am attracted to individual registration and personal identifiers, but I understand Labour Members' concerns about the potential deterrent effect, although I do not necessarily agree with them. We have been trying to reach a common view, so I am prepared to accept that there is at least a risk. I hope that we shall engage in a vigorous attempt to increase the number of people on the register, and I am heartened by proposals in the London boroughs to maximise the effectiveness of the drive for registration. I hope that that succeeds, because it is long overdue, and for numerous reasons London causes particular concern when it comes to registration. National insurance numbers may pose the risk of a deterrent, although I do not think that the same applies to signatures and dates of birth. I think that everyone can cope with those on their own behalf.
	Let us go some way towards meeting the concerns of the public and the Electoral Commission. Let us for a moment park our concerns about individual registration and consider personal identifiers, and how they might be applied at least to the most urgent and crucial parts of the electoral process: the postal vote and the absent voters list.
	The Electoral Commission came up with what it called a transitional arrangement. It said "OK, we will not require everyone to provide personal identifiers on registration yet. We will allow people to provide personal identifiers, but we will not demand it if they are to vote in person. However, we will certainly not send ballot papers through the post to people unknown without checking that they are who they say they are." Those who wish to be included in an absent voters list are required to have already added their signatures and dates of birth to the electoral register. A test can then be carried out—I accept that it is not the most rigorous test in the world—to establish that they are the people whose names were put on the register in the first instance. I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that that is a minimal requirement if we are maintain the integrity of the system and restore confidence in it. I do not believe that it is the perfect answer and neither does the Electoral Commission; indeed, it makes it plain that it sees it as a first step. It says in its briefing for this debate that it is a "transitional scheme" that would
	"act as the first step towards full individual registration . . . a household form would continue to be used for the canvass, and no additional information would be required from an elector in order to vote in the ordinary way at a polling station . . . unlike geographically based pilot schemes, postal votes across Great Britain would immediately benefit from improved security while requiring no change to the registration process for the majority who wish to vote in a polling station".
	That is the difference between the Electoral Commission's proposal and the Government's. First, the former proposal would have nationwide applicability; secondly, it would immediately improve the security of the postal voting arrangements; and, thirdly, it would not affect registration in its basic form or people's ability to vote in person at a polling station.

Chris Ruane: The right hon. Gentleman mentions a minority of cases. The functional illiteracy rate across the UK is said to be between 10 and 15 per cent. In poorer areas, it is a lot higher. How do we get over the problem of very low registration rates in poorer areas. In my own constituency, for example, it is as low as 76 per cent., and in Aberystwyth it is 52 per cent.

David Cairns: In discussing the new clause, I shall take the opportunity to indicate the Government's attitude to the other amendments in the group.
	Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets out the requirement that holders of elective office should report donations that they receive to the Electoral Commission, which then publishes them. Hon. Members must currently report donations to not only our own Register of Members' Interests, but the Electoral Commission, and many hon. Members take the view that such duplication is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made that point on Second Reading.
	On Second Reading, I said that we would consider the matter carefully and introduce our proposals. The Standards and Privileges Committee, of which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is the Chair, published a report today expressing its support for new clause 15:
	"We commend its proposals to the House"—
	the Government's proposals—
	"as an effective means of removing the existing duplication of reporting requirements faced by Members."
	The new clause is relatively simple. It means that hon. Members will not have to report donations to the Electoral Commission, whether those donations were received in their role as an MP or in their role as a member of a registered political party. For technical reasons, the new clause retains the requirement for the Electoral Commission to record details of such donations on its register. The commission will also continue to monitor compliance with the regulatory system, as set out in the 2000 Act. However, it will have no role to play on the non-reporting of donations, and the Register of Members' Interests will retain its functions on that issue. The provision will commence only when the Electoral Commission is content that the House authorities have sufficient arrangements in place to ensure that the commission can still maintain an accurate register, but we do not think that that will be a problem.
	We are working on a solution that would remove the requirement for all holders of elected office, which includes MEPs, Members of the devolved Administrations and local councillors throughout the UK, to report donations to the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission and the relevant bodies, including the Scottish Executive and the Standards Board for England, support the proposals, but some technical issues remain to be resolved, and we will continue to explore them with the intention of tabling an amendment, which will be introduced later in the Bill's parliamentary passage, covering all holders of relevant elective office.
	Amendment No. 21 deals with what has become known as the "four-month issue" or the "relevant period issue". Although the provision concerns only third-party spending, there has been a great deal discussion about the efficacy of the relevant period concept. I should like to take a moment to explain to the rest of the House the point that we have reached.
	All members of the Committee, without exception, accepted that there is a problem in our system. We accept the principle of expenditure limits for national parties; that has been set, agreed to, and adhered to. We also accept the principle of expenditure limits in individual constituencies during general elections. That is a well understood and well adhered to policy. However, a relatively recent and growing phenomenon is that of the third category, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister described it in Committee, of unlimited, uncapped local spending in specific constituencies in the run-up period—the proximity period—to a general election. If we accept, as I think we all do, that there is a role for money to play in elections, but that it has to be regulated and limited, now is the opportunity to address the lacuna whereby unlimited spending can be undertaken in individual constituencies, often to the tune of many tens of thousands of pounds.
	The Electoral Commission made a proposal, which we incorporated into the Bill and discussed on Second Reading, to introduce a four-month election campaign period, to be dated backwards from polling day, which would in effect spread the spending that takes place during an election across four months. That was an attempt to deal with the third category of spend. That proposal was not without its flaws, which were debated in depth, so I will not rehearse them. One problem is that we would not know when we were in the four-month period, because we cannot know that election is going to take place until Parliament is dissolved, the Prime Minister goes to the palace and the election kicks off.
	Another proposal was to revert to the status quo ante and not have MPs becoming candidates on the dissolution of Parliament, but it was felt that that would resurrect the prospective parliamentary candidate system, which also had its flaws—that was why we moved away from that in the first place.
	Another major consideration in Committee was that because the spending limit for the four-week campaign—for want of a better phrase, the short campaign—is relatively low, perhaps on average about £10,000, although it obviously varies according to the size of constituency, if it was spread not over four weeks but four months, that would seriously limit the amount of legitimate campaigning that could go on in the run-up period to a general election. We have absolutely no wish to do that. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested—I do not think that it was his preferred option, but an attempt to explore some of the problems involved—that we should simply double the limit for the election campaign spend. However, that would create other problems. If the limit was put up to £20,000 or £25,000, there would be nothing to stop someone not spending anything in the run-up period but spending it all during the election campaign, which would have a distorting effect.
	I hope that I have made it clear that there is no obvious solution to the problem that does not result in other problems. We therefore undertook in Committee to attempt to explore the issue further, in consultation with Front-Bench spokesmen, and to give an outline of how we will proceed.
	Another point that was clearly expressed in Committee was that during the run-up period, or proximity period—the three months before the dissolution of Parliament—we will all continue to be MPs and to do our duties as MPs, including communicating with the electorate. Members expressed the fear that if we did that inadvertently during the time that was retrospectively to be part of the election campaign, we would get into trouble. That is a legitimate fear. We have to make it absolutely clear that expenditure by MPs discharging their duty to communicate with their constituents will not, wherever it has been sanctioned by the incidental expenses provision, in any way be counted against election spending after the event. We must be clear about that. Further consultation with the House authorities and the Electoral Commission is required to ensure that such a provision is robust and that Members of Parliament who go about their business will not be caught out by claims that something or other constituted election expenditure.
	Of course, the rule for indicated expenditure provision is that it must not be used for campaigning or party political purposes, irrespective of whether we are in the run-up to a general election. If we maintain the integrity of the IEP rules, that fear can be set aside.
	We seek consensus on the issue. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was probably right to say that all the controversy was likely to be about the first group of amendments. That is not to say that there will be harmony on everything else but we all accept that a problem exists and we are tying to find a solution together.
	We want a workable solution that tackles the problem and maintains and strengthens the transparent and accountable regulatory system. To that end, we have been consulting the Opposition parties and the Electoral Commission, and have devised what may be—I believe that it will be—a workable alternative. We propose to maintain the concept of a run-up period to the election campaign but to protect the election campaign as it currently stands. In other words, the campaign will kick off at Dissolution and a Member of Parliament will continue to be entitled to spend everything that one is now allowed to spend during the four-week campaign. That money is ring-fenced.
	However, we propose to introduce the concept of a run-up period of three months, during which there will be a separate cap on what can be spent locally in a constituency. That period would have an expenditure limit. The definition of election expenditure would take account of the fact that Members of Parliament continue to carry out their parliamentary duties and constituency activities. During the run-up period, election expenses would cover only campaigning costs.
	The proposal would create a rolling three-month period with a discrete limit. That will provide greater clarity by setting the rules for what can be spent on campaigning activities in the run-up to the dissolution of Parliament. It would avoid a situation whereby candidates accidentally exceeded the election expenses limit simply because they did not know that they were in the election period. The three-month proximity or run-up period and the current period would apply to all candidates thereby maintaining a level playing field.
	The proposal does not resolve all the problems about the concept of a run-up period. Legitimate anxieties remain about the role of election agents and their legal responsibilities. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will want to discuss those further. Problems remain such as precisely what spending should be included in the two different periods. Amendment No. 3 focuses on that. Whatever happens, the election expenses limit will almost certainly need to be increased. Problems remain about communicating with an individual elector and the correct category into which such communication falls.
	We therefore propose to table an amendment at a later stage to take a power under the Bill to introduce a scheme through secondary legislation, which will follow full and wide-ranging consultation with all interested parties. We will learn from political parties' expenditure, party lists in Wales and Scotland and the Electoral Commission's current work on expenditure at the previous general election. I want to give a clear assurance that hon. Members will have the opportunity to have their say during any proposed consultation and before any scheme is submitted to Parliament.

David Heath: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are grateful to him for looking again at this issue. His proposal certainly has a basis for agreement. We agree, however, that the reporting process still presents some difficulties. In principle, if we could avoid the reporting, the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) should apply. That is that, in any three-month period there should be a cap on expenditure, provided that our agents did not have to report on every three-month period, because that would be too onerous a task. We might look again at that, but I agree with the Minister that the three months before a general election are the crucial period.

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted one of the key issues that remain to be resolved. Whether we talk of unintended consequences or of moral hazards, if we write into statute that the agent, once appointed, cannot be held responsible in any way for what was spent in the past, we shall merely create an incentive for no one to appoint an agent until Parliament is prorogued or dissolved before an election. That would lead to anarchy. Everyone would be spending everything and appointing agents the day before the Prime Minister went to the palace, and no one would be accountable for anything.
	We are trying to strike a balance. I have been frank about the fact that we have not resolved all the issues, which is why it would be unwise at this stage to write anything too prescriptive into the Bill. The amendment that we propose to table in another place will be an enabling amendment, allowing us to present subsequent orders through the affirmative procedure. It will give us time to study the Electoral Commission's proposals, examine what happens elsewhere, continue the discussion among ourselves, and return to our constituencies and prepare for the arrangements by consulting our own agents. I have a particularly excellent agent, who I am sure will cope with it all admirably. None the less, we should be aware that we are creating burdens.
	Amendment No 20 deals specifically with unauthorised third-party election expenses. Following the case of Bowman v. UK, the Government amended section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by means of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to increase the expenditure limit for unauthorised third parties. However, the relevant section remains ambiguous in relation to precisely what the money can be spent on. Clause 29 clears that up. Expenditure by unauthorised third parties up to the specified level, £500, will be allowed on holding public meetings or organising any public display, on issuing advertisements, circulars or publications, and on other ways of presenting a candidate's views to the electorate.
	The purpose of clause 29(6), which amendment No. 20 would delete, is to enable the clarification provided by clause 29 to apply, to minimise the dangers of erroneous prosecution of a third party who has misunderstood the ambiguous legislation and may therefore have contravened it while acting in good faith. Anyone who has been prosecuted—which has already happened in one case—will now be able to cite subsection 6 in his or her defence, or in the event of a repeal.
	We have taken powers in the Bill to ensure that when there is a list election under one of the various proportional representation systems, the names of all the candidates will not have to appear at the bottom of the documents, on which the imprint is quite large. Someone—I think it was a Conservative Back Bencher—asked about county council and other elections. [Interruption.] In fact, it was the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I apologise for calling him a Conservative. [Interruption.] Apparently the hon. Gentleman will see me outside. I spent the new year in his constituency, and this is how he repays me!
	A sensible point was made. In next year's London election, one party will put up 60 candidates. Will the names of all 60 have to be listed at the bottom of the leaflets? They would take up half the space, which would obviously be silly. Our amendment 63 extends the provisions already applying to other types of election to cover the eventuality described by the hon. Gentleman.

Oliver Heald: I welcome amendment 63, because it makes a good deal of sense. It would allow the party name to be used if there were more than one candidate. I am glad that the Minister listened to what was said in Committee. We also welcome new clause 15, which will make life simpler and less confusing for all concerned without reducing sensible control over the transparency and accountability of Members of Parliament.
	As I said on Second Reading, I share the concern that has been expressed about the more general issue of holders of elective office being required to report donations to the commission and to the body to which they are elected. I was pleased to hear the Minister's assurance that this issue is being looked at. We should also pay tribute to the commission, which was prepared to suggest sensible proposals and to support them.
	I thank the Minister for the welcome consultation that has taken place on the more difficult issue of a proposed regulated period for election expenses. As we pointed out, if the date of an election is unknown, a regulated period with an expenditure cap can create real problems. If the election date proves to be a surprise or if the election is delayed—as happened following the foot and mouth crisis—the money might be spent before the campaign starts; as a result, it would be impossible to compete effectively in the campaign. So it is good that the Minister has examined this issue and concluded that the election period itself should be ring-fenced, and that the expenses for the period in question should be dealt with according to current practice.
	On the proposed taking into account of an earlier period, the Minister is right to say that the power to create such a provision through regulation should be discrete and subject to full consultation. There are some problems with this proposal. If volunteer agents—who may have been appointed as recently as the Dissolution of Parliament, or when an election campaign starts—are to be told, "You will be responsible for what happened in the previous three months", they might prove quite difficult to recruit. Alternatively, we might end up with prospective parliamentary agents, just as we used to have prospective parliamentary candidates. So we need to look at this issue, although I accept the more general point that problems can arise if there is very heavy expenditure just before the election period starts.

David Cairns: I am enjoying it. Metaphors about banging heads against a brick wall come to mind.
	Questions were asked about new clause 15 and the reporting issues. It is true that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. At least three hon. Members claimed paternity of new clause 15, but I am happy to give credit where it is due. I said immediately before the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) entered the Chamber how indebted we were to him and his Committee for its report, so I am happy to repeat that now. I am grateful to him for casting the move as deregulatory. I had not conceived of it in those terms, but that will win us brownie points with the Cabinet Office and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who champions the deregulation agenda with great vigour.
	The discussion about the period of four months highlighted the fact that everyone accepts that there is a problem, but understands that any solution proposed would create other problems. That shows the need for us not to be too prescriptive in primary legislation, but to proceed slowly and incrementally through secondary legislation.
	A specific point was made about leadership elections. I appreciate that they are all the rage these days and am sure that we will have one in due course. There are two possible solutions to the problem that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned. We would have to consider what the money was being spent on and ensure that our definitions were sufficiently robust to withstand the case that he mentioned. I was glad that he raised the matter because I had not considered it and we will now do so.
	It is important that we get the limit right in the run-up period because it must be high enough so that the routine run-of-the-mill stuff done by us, constituency associations and constituency Labour parties is not constrained, but low enough to dissuade rich people from trying to buy seats. That is the essential dilemma that we face. It would be foolish to put such limits into primary legislation, so I commend the what has been proposed to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to new clause 2, No. (a), at end of proposed new subsection (1)(c) add—
	'(d) any person registered to vote who is not entitled to vote is removed from the register as soon as reasonably practicable.'.
	New clause 5—Prisoners voting—
	(a) been convicted of any criminal offence, and
	(b) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment and is detained in full-time custody in consequence thereof,
	shall be included on the register of electors.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 47 to 51.

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 73, line 21, at end insert—
	'(aa) section (repeal of personal identifier provisions);'.—[Ms Harman.]

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 77, line 10, leave out '9B(2)' and insert '9B(9A)'.
	No. 69, in page 88, line 41, leave out
	'issue of the notice of poll'
	and insert
	'publication of notice of the election'.
	No. 70, in page 95, line 32, at end insert—
	'88A (1) Section 29 (payments by and to returning officer), as proposed to be amended by paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 21 to the 2000 Act, is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (3) to (6) substitute—
	"(3) A returning officer shall be entitled to recover his charges in respect of services rendered, or expenses incurred, for or in connection with a parliamentary election if—
	(a) the services were necessarily rendered, or the expenses were necessarily incurred, for the efficient and effective conduct of the election; and
	(b) the total of his charges does not exceed the amount ("the overall maximum recoverable amount") specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Commission, with the consent of the Treasury, for the purposes of this subsection.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may specify, or make provision for determining in accordance with the regulations, a maximum recoverable amount for services or expenses of any specified description and, subject to subsection (5) below, the returning officer may not recover more than that amount in respect of any such services or expenses.
	(5) In a particular case the Commission may, with the consent of the Treasury, authorise the payment of—
	(a) more than the overall maximum recoverable amount, or
	(b) more than the specified maximum recoverable amount for any specified services or expenses,
	if the Commission are satisfied that the conditions in subsection (6) are met.
	(6) The conditions referred to in subsection (5) are—
	(a) that it was reasonable for the returning officer concerned to render the services or incur the expenses, and
	(b) that the charges in question are reasonable."'.
	No. 71, in page 98, line 37, leave out 'or 6B'.
	No. 72, in page 99, line 35, leave out paragraph 118.—[Ms Harman.]

Harriet Harman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill is an important step in the very big task of restoring health and legitimacy to our democracy. Our democracy is not working properly unless everyone eligible is registered to vote, everyone participates in elections and no one fiddles the vote. The Bill takes forward measures on all of those three legs of the stool on which democracy depends.
	I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), for his excellent work on the Bill. I said at the outset that we would listen and respond to points made on the Bill from all parts of the House. Our approach has been non-party political and non-partisan. In that spirit, I particularly thank the Opposition—the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—for their helpful suggestions, many of which have found their way into the Bill.
	I acknowledge and thank our Whip on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), and my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton).I acknowledge the work of Select Committees, above all the Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee, all of which have had a substantive input into the Bill.
	I thank Back Benchers from all sides, particularly those who served on the Committee. We were helped by the assistance of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), because much of the discussion that we have had in the House and in Committee was informed by the fact that he has asked a great many parliamentary questions, elicited answers and done a great deal of research. I also thank hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, but who none the less played a large part in producing the substance of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) for introducing what I call the Cormack amendments. I also thank hon. Members in all parts of the House, particularly the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who highlighted the issues of service voters and their under-registration. I look forward to further debate on that in another place.
	Much of the Bill has been agreed, and much of it has been changed, often at the suggestion of Back Benchers or Opposition Members. One thing that has not changed, however, is the position of prisoners, who are not entitled to vote if they have been convicted.
	Although we agree with the official Opposition about convicted prisoners, we do not agree with them about the roll-out of personal identifiers as a condition of registration, which they think should happen immediately. The Government have decided that that must be piloted before a national roll-out, so we agree on the principles, but disagree on implementation. Our approach has remained non-partisan, consultative and evidence-based, which is why we have stuck with the pilots and will insist on them before any roll-out.
	After Third Reading, we will send the Bill from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, and I look forward to hearing their lordships' views. I know that their lordships will acknowledge that the Bill is about elections and bear in mind that consideration by the elected House has been thorough and non-partisan. I am sure that my noble Friend Baroness Ashton will share the approach adopted by me and my ministerial colleagues by taking an open-minded and non-partisan approach to amendments introduced in the Lords.

Oliver Heald: I join the Minister in thanking all those involved with the Bill on both sides of the House. I particularly thank the Minister and the Under-Secretary for being constructive and prepared to consult.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who have done all the hard work. I also pay tribute to our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who is sadly not here today, but who has worked hard on the Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who has already been mentioned and who has happily been returned to us, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
	The Electoral Commission has briefed us throughout the process, and I pay tribute to Sam Younger and Lisa Watch, who have provided us with excellent back-up.
	I do not agree with the Minister about prisoners. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the blanket ban is not compatible with the European convention on human rights, and one of the reasons that it gives for that opinion is that the ban has not been properly discussed in the House, so we cannot be criticised for introducing an amendment drafted in similar terms to the current law to allow that to happen. The Minister's colleagues in another place may want to consult on the matter, but we feel that we have pushed the process forward. We are sad that Ministers did not join us in the Division Lobby, because the two main parties should be united on the matter—we know that the Liberal Democrats take a different view, but the responsible parties should unite on the issue.
	As I said on Second Reading, we welcome the improvements to the Bill such as the new offence, the marked register for postal votes and anonymous registration, all of which we have discussed this evening. I am also pleased that the changes that we called for on Second Reading such as assurances about CORE, fairness on the descriptions allowed for independents and party candidates, clarifying the election expenses rules, not reducing the threshold for the loss of deposits, which would have helped extremist parties, and a firmer test regarding safety for those who are at risk when it comes to anonymous registration. The Government have examined all those matters and acted upon them, and we are grateful.
	However, we are still unhappy that the Government have been unable to help on individual voter registration, which is a vital, urgent and much-needed protection against postal vote fraud. It is sad that that they are still not prepared to make the tiniest concession on that beyond the pilots, which are not an answer to the problem. It is also a pity that they are still not prepared, despite all the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, to rule out all-postal vote elections for the future.
	We would like some concrete measures on service voters. I will not speak for too long in the hope that other hon. Members will be able to say a few words about that.
	There is more to be done with the Bill in the other place. When the Northern Ireland voting system was being considered, the advocacy of my noble Friend Lord Glentoran persuaded the Government to overcome their original objections and introduce a secure system. I hope that that might happen again with this Bill.

Rosemary McKenna: I very much appreciate the opportunity to welcome the Bill despite the fact that my amendment was not selected.
	I want to put on record that the Minister has assured me that the circumstances that arose in my constituency at the last election will not arise again. Five hundred ballot papers were ruled out as ineligible because the polling clerk had written on the ballot paper the identifying number of the electors. That was a scandal and a disgrace. The returning officer was absolutely right that according to the law they could not be allowed. What worries me is that that is all right with an 11,000-plus majority, but it would have a significant effect in a by-election or a council election in my constituency, or anywhere.
	This particular individual in Kirkintilloch had been a presiding officer in a polling station in the past, had had extra training, as had all the others, and had been given the information from the Electoral Commission, yet he still made this mistake. The Minister has assured me that the separation of the ballot paper from the identifying marks means that it cannot possibly happen again, and I am delighted to have that reassurance. It is crucial that it does not happen again—the 500 people who voted in Oxgangs primary school had their votes taken away.
	The terms of the provision could have been reinforced a bit more, and I will be watching its operation carefully. I very much welcome all the other changes that have been made in the Bill.

Clive Betts: I welcome the Bill, especially the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have conducted discussions on it. They have listened not only to Opposition Members but to Labour Back Benchers. I thank them for their approach.
	Clearly, it is a national disgrace that 4 million people who are entitled to vote in this country are not even registered. It is also undemocratic and discriminatory because a disproportionate number of those who are not registered come from inner-city areas, are young, members of black and other ethnic minority groups or live in private rented accommodation and houses in multiple in occupation. It is right that the Bill seeks to address that deficit in our democratic system.
	I particularly welcome the powers and responsibilities given to registration officers in clause 9. However, I still want further reassurance about the powers of officers to obtain information from organisations that are not within the council for which they work, especially when houses are transferred from a local authority to arm's length management organisations or housing associations. Organisations such as local colleges, the Post Office and even private sector organisations such as utility companies might have to give information to registration officers.
	The Bill represents a welcome step forward, but I believe that we shall eventually have to move to a system similar to that in Australia, in which most of the information comes to returning officers automatically from various organisations, and in which canvassers are used on a periodic basis to back that up. That would turn our system round to some extent.
	I welcome the setting of a national standard for the way in which officials operate. It is clearly right that general elections be conducted on registers that are drawn up on a similar basis in every local authority in the country. Having a national standard is important for that reason, if for no other. I also welcome the powers given to the Electoral Commission to ask for reports from various officers, to assess how different authorities are doing and to draw comparisons between them. I hope that such reports will be made annually and that we shall also encourage the scrutiny committees of local authorities to engage with their registration officers and others in considering how they compare with the work being done by their counterparts in other authorities. We must have scrutiny at local level, as well as information produced by the Electoral Commission at national level, so that Members of Parliament can ensure that our registers are much more accurate and democratic.

Andrew Tyrie: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said about service voter registration. I shall make three brief points about that.
	First, having campaigned for about 18 months, I am now certain that the Minister has understood the problem and really wants to do something about it. That is a huge plus. Secondly, I have the strong impression that the whole House is convinced that we need to do something about it. All parties agree that we cannot stay where we are. Thirdly, we have not yet cracked the problem because not all parts of the Government agree on what should be done. My strong impression is that the Ministry of Defence never liked the old service voter registration scheme. It feels that it has better things to do than to act, effectively, as a returning officer. That is a perfectly reasonable attitude. The MOD would much rather try to muddle through with the existing scheme and see whether it can be made to work. I do not think that it can, and I do not think we should accept that approach.
	There are two other possible routes. One involves trying to devise a much better piece of legislation, which I do not think will be possible in the time available to the other place. If we are to try to find the best solution, that will mean putting enabling powers on the statute book that the Minister can then activate through secondary legislation. As a legislator, I do not like that approach, but I realise that it may be necessary. That was the purport of an amendment that was tabled by the Opposition, but not debated today.
	The other possible approach is one that I recommended originally and have not yet abandoned. It involves repealing the relevant clause in the old legislation and returning to the status quo ante, so that at least during the next few years and at the next general election, 250,000 service voters will be back on the register. That would give us time to work out together what is the best scheme, but the best must not become the enemy of the good. We cannot allow the scandal of service voters who work for democracy in countries such as Iraq finding themselves disenfranchised at home to continue. We cannot allow it to happen at an election again. I salute the Minister for reaching that conclusion and hope that she will emphasise, with all possible vigour, the need to resolve the issue in a sensible way.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Brian Iddon: Given that 2005 is the 25th anniversary of the statutory right-to-buy scheme, which was introduced by the Housing Act 1980, it seems appropriate to assess the policy's impact on the British housing scene today. I was elected to Bolton metropolitan district council in 1977 and for 20 years I served on its housing committee, which I chaired from 1986 to 1996. For most of those 20 years, the council house waiting list remained at about 5,000 applications. When it started to rise in the late 1980s, I became concerned, but I became alarmed when it rose to about 8,500.
	The right-to-buy policy had started to impact by then. Unfit private sector houses were still being cleared, albeit on a much-reduced scale, and council house building had stopped completely. The housing committee therefore formed a partnership with five preferred housing associations. The council provided land at nil cost in order to keep rents down, and we started to build our way out of what was becoming a housing crisis. Thus was born Bolton Community Homes Ltd., which still thrives today. It compiles a joint housing register for all social housing, called "Homes For You". Councillor Noel Spencer, the current chairman of Bolton At Home, which is an arm's-length management organisation, told me that the "Homes For You" housing register has recently exceeded 20,000—the highest expression of interest in social housing that Bolton has ever seen.
	"Homes For You" in Bolton runs a choice-based lettings system. Every week, a list of available properties is published in the property section of the Bolton Evening News. In one corner of its advertisement appear the results of expressions of interest in properties that were advertised two weeks earlier. These weekly lists provide evidence of a steadily rising demand for social housing, which was one reason for seeking this Adjournment debate. Bolton is not able to build its way out of its difficulties today because its housing capital resources have been shifted to the pathfinder authorities and to other areas of the country.
	Another reason for seeking this debate was that I and others believe that Bolton's highest-ever housing registration figure has been inflated as a result of the right-to-buy scheme. Bolton has sold 28 per cent. of its housing stock, close to the national figure of 30 per cent. Of course, it is always the better homes in the high-demand areas that are sold first. On some Bolton estates, sales stand at well over 50 per cent.
	Knowing that council house modernisation schemes affect valuation prices very little, tenants sometimes wait in the hope that a modernisation programme will improve their property before they exercise their right to buy. Investment in the decent homes policy might be accelerating sales for that reason, but there is no doubt that current prices in the private housing sector are the most significant impacting factor.
	In Bolton, house prices rose by an average of 12 per cent. in 2001–02, by 16 per cent. in 2002–03, and by a significant 32 per cent. in 2003–04, although the rise slowed to 20 per cent. in the first half of 2004–05. The National Housing Federation has reported that a person on average earnings in the north-west needed to borrow 6.1 times their annual salary in May 2005 to purchase an average home. In Bolton, the borrowing ratio was worse, at 6.3 times the average salary.
	That brings me to public sector valuations, which have always lagged behind private sector valuations for similar houses in similar areas. In Bolton, sale prices are established by private sector valuers. Completion of sales takes about 12 months, but the valuation is front loaded, which means that the sale price can be significantly out of date at the time of completion.
	Bolton's chief housing officer reported in February 2005 that, of 26 applications referred for determination to the district valuer, 19 were reduced by an average of 6 per cent. Five valuations remained the same, while two were increased by an average of 4.4 per cent. Those two increases were the first ever valuation increases by the district valuer in Bolton since the right-to-buy policy was introduced in 1980.
	I shall give my hon. Friend the Minister some idea of how low the valuations in Bolton are. For example, Hargreaves house in the town centre was built in 1958. Recently, a two-bedroom flat there was valued at £28,000, and was sold for only £8,400. Bolton council recently completed internal refurbishment of the flat, and the discounted purchase price hardly covered the cost of that refurbishment. In addition, almost immediately before that sale the council had spent £638,000 refurbishing Hargreaves house, both externally and in the communal areas. However, the cost-floor rules do not allow such improvements to be taken into consideration in the sale of the property. In contrast, Marsden house is a recently built block of flats less than a quarter of a mile away from Hargreaves house. The selling price of a typical two-bedroom flat there is £150,000.
	To accommodate a large family, two three-bedroom semi-detached properties in Mancroft avenue, built in 1932, were recently converted into a six-bedroom house at a cost of £28,000. Yet the converted property was valued at only £57,500, and it sold at a discounted price of £27,600—less than the conversion cost. Again, the cost-floor rules allowed that to happen. Will my hon. Friend the Minister therefore be prepared to look at the cost-floor rule to prevent such anomalies in the future?
	It seems to me that the guidance for valuations of tenanted public sector homes is not working to the advantage of the public purse. How is possible to reach those valuations in any case, when there are very few comparisons with sales of tenanted properties in the private sector? Will my hon. Friend the Minister also look at the valuation guidance, in the interests of the public purse?
	According to a recent parliamentary answer by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, housing waiting figures have gone up by 50 per cent. nationally since 1997. That means that another 1.5 million are waiting for an affordable home in the public sector. The worst hit areas, of course, are London and the south-east, where rising property prices have meant that waiting lists for council homes have risen by 77 per cent. In the case of Hertsmere council in Hertfordshire, they have risen by a massive 2,424 per cent since 1997. In the early days of the RTB scheme, we were led to believe that houses sold would be replaced, but no Government, not even a Labour one, have met the demand for social housing.
	That brings me to capital receipts. For every house sold in Bolton, 75 per cent. of the capital receipt ends up in the Treasury. I wonder how much of the pooled income from across the country is spent on providing new, affordable public sector homes. More than generous discounts, heaped on top of ridiculously low valuations, have meant that capital receipts, even had they all been spent on building new homes, have been nowhere near enough to build the replacement homes we need. In most financial years, significantly more council homes have been sold through the RTB policy than were built by local councils and housing associations put together.
	Despite the RTB scheme's obvious popularity, first realised by Margaret Thatcher, it was always destined to affect most those in the greatest housing need. The Office of Deputy Prime Minister has established that more than 15 years after purchase at least half the purchasing households remain in occupation on the estates, which helps to stabilise them. However, many of the homes sold end up in the hands of private landlords who let former council houses at more than double council rents. That has put a huge strain on the housing benefit budget. Furthermore, tenants evicted by their council landlords for antisocial behaviour often end up living round the corner on the same estate, and on at least double the rent, which is often met from the public purse.
	Owner-occupation rose from 58 per cent. in 1981 to 71 per cent. in 2004, but with it comes responsibility. Unfortunately, many former council tenants, persuaded to purchase their homes by low valuations and generous discounts, by low mortgages since 1997 and by successive Governments, have not always realised the true cost of maintaining a home.
	The RTB is preserved for those tenants whose homes have been the subject of large-scale voluntary transfer. An accelerating number of sales is creating increasing financial difficulties for those housing associations—registered social landlords, we call them today—that have taken ownership of a considerable number of former council home properties.
	The effect of the RTB policy in rural areas has been devastating, particularly in attractive parts of the country where properties are sold off as second homes. The Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003 reduced the RTB discount in 41 local authority areas in London and south-east England that were experiencing high levels of homelessness and high property prices. The changes appear to have slowed sales. Will my hon. Friend the Minister therefore review the current position and consider extending the order to other local authorities?
	A pressurised housing status exists in Scotland, and East Renfrewshire council became the first to win it. Tenants there are prevented from exercising their right to buy until the status is lifted, which makes sense to me. Will my hon. Friend also consider providing a level playing field between the right-to-acquire policy, applicable to housing association tenants who can receive a maximum discount of only £9,000 in the north-west region, and that for council house tenants, including those managed by arm's-length management organisations, whose discounts are far more generous?
	As a result of abuses to the original RTB scheme, changes have been made, too, to the qualifying period before a public sector tenant can make an RTB application, to the discount calculations and to the rules for repayment of discounts. Those exercising their RTB must now offer the property back to the council at the market price if they choose to sell it within 10 years of purchase. It will be interesting to measure the effect of those changes on RTB sales.
	At the end of September, local authorities across England became duty bound to write to all their secure tenants to explain how the purchase price of their homes is calculated, provide details of how to apply and explain the potentially high costs associated with owning a home. The home ownership section of Bolton Community Homes has included a warning in its leaflet about the private companies whose representatives still appear on doorsteps to try to persuade tenants to exercise their right to buy. Sometimes they pretend to be working with the council. They spread rumours that the right to buy is coming to an end, when it is not, and that the council is about to sell off its homes, when it is not. They also tell tenants that their rents are likely to double.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this debate on the right-to-buy scheme and I acknowledge his experience in these matters. I will try to respond to the points he has raised.
	The Government want to offer as many people as possible the opportunity to own a home, provided that they can sustain the commitments that go with it. We have acted to help first-time buyers, including people living with family, key workers, and those renting privately or from social landlords. The right to buy is a key part of our strategy.
	Our new HomeBuy scheme, due to commence in April 2006, will help some 100,000 households into home ownership by 2010, including 30,000 key workers. That will build on the success of our starter home initiative, which helped more than 10,000 key workers to find a home, and on our existing shared ownership and equity loan schemes. I should stress that, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we are committed to the principle of the right to buy. It has helped more than 1.7 million people to realise their aspirations to own their homes.
	The right to buy has been a great benefit to individuals and their families, freeing them from a dependency mindset. It has brought wider social benefits too, by helping to create sustainable mixed-tenure communities, and it has generated more than £45 billion in capital receipts, which have been used to reduce local authorities' debt burden and freeing some resources to be ploughed back into social housing and other public spending.
	But the right to buy has led to problems. The rules have been exploited by some tenants and by some companies. Other tenants have bought but have found the costs of home ownership burdensome. My hon. Friend refers to valuation of homes sold under the right to buy. Under section 127 of the Housing Act 1985, that is the price that the property would realise if sold on the open market by a willing vendor, disregarding any improvements made by the tenant. The market price depends on a number of factors, including the condition of the property, what the surrounding area is like and its location in relation to services. Improvements may add a lot of value in some areas, but much less in others.
	The Government recognise that there are concerns about right-to-buy valuations, so we commissioned research from the College of Estate Management. This was published in 2004 and is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website. It recommended that guidance should be issued for those involved in right-to-buy valuations, so we convened a working group of practitioners led by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The working group is preparing guidance, which will be published quite soon.
	My hon. Friend referred to the cost floor, and suggested that it may not be working well. Under the cost floor, the right-to-buy discount should not reduce the price of a property below what the landlord spent on it during the previous 10 years. If my hon. Friend would like to send me more of the examples that he mentioned, our officials will look into the matter.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the use of capital receipts. As he said, local authorities pay the Government 75 per cent. of their receipts from right-to-buy sales, which are taken into account when we determine the level of investment in housing that we will support, bearing in mind local needs. So pooling is a means of redistributing resources to areas where the need is greatest.
	Like my hon. Friend, many Members will have seen the leaflets pushed through doors on council estates, claiming that the Government are about to do away with the scheme and urging tenants to buy now, with a little help from the company that has issued the leaflets. Research published in March 2003 highlighted the motives of some companies: to persuade people to agree to sell the homes they bought under right to buy to the company, at the discounted price available to tenants. So those companies are able to buy up ex-council homes cheaply and then let them out at market rents, which are unaffordable for people in the greatest housing need. I am glad to say that the Government have made such exploitation a whole lot harder. We have also tackled another abuse, which endangered regeneration schemes by forcing councils to pay compulsory purchase compensation to people who had bought their homes at discounted prices knowing full well that they were scheduled for demolition.
	My hon. Friend mentioned antisocial behaviour by tenants. We agree that eviction often simply moves the problem round the corner, so our respect action plan, published yesterday, sees eviction as a last resort. It emphasises managing antisocial behaviour through rehabilitation, family support, antisocial behaviour injunctions and of course antisocial behaviour orders. Furthermore, we have given landlords the power to suspend right-to-buy applications from tenants involved in antisocial behaviour.
	In the Housing Act 2004, we tightened up the right-to-buy rules to make the scheme fairer to both landlords and tenants who are committed to their communities. As my hon. Friend noted, we had previously lowered the maximum right-to-buy discount available to tenants in 41 areas under the greatest housing pressure, in terms of high levels of homelessness and high house prices.